linux-kernel - Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912081304070.3560@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:08:05 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> That's not the way it should be done.  Linus had children taking their
> parents' locks during suspend, which is simple but leads to
> difficulties.

No it doesn't. Name them.

> Instead, the PM core should do a down_write() on each device before
> starting the device's async suspend routine, and an up_write() when the
> routine finishes.

No you should NOT do that. If you do that, you serialize the suspend 
incorrectly and much too early. IOW, think a topology like this:

	a -> b -> c
	  \
	   > d -> e

where you'd want to suspend 'c' and 'e' asynchronously.  If we do a 
'down-write()' on b, then we'll delay until 'c' has suspended, an if we 
have ordered the nodes in the obvious depth-first order, we'll walk the PM 
device list in the order:

	c b e d a

and now we'll serialize on 'b', waiting for 'c' to suspend. Which we do 
_not_ want to do, because the whole point was to suspend 'c' and 'e' 
together.

> Parents should, at the start of their async routine,
> do down_read() on each of their children plus whatever other devices
> they need to wait for.  The core can do the waiting for children part 
> and the driver's suspend routine can handle any other waiting.

Why?

That just complicates things. Compare to my simple locking scheme I've 
quoted several times. 

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/